Self v. State
Citation | 420 So.2d 798 |
Parties | Ex parte: State of Alabama. (Re David SELF, alias v. STATE of Alabama). 80-373. |
Decision Date | 04 June 1982 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G.L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State.
Joseph G. Pierce of Drake & Pierce, University, for respondent.
We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 420 So.2d 792, to review that court's judgment which reversed the conviction of respondent, David Self, remanded the case for a new trial and ordered the State to either produce the material witness, Charles Gates, or dismiss the case against respondent. The facts and circumstances involving the issue presented to this Court are adequately set forth in the opinion of the court below.
The issue presented is whether under the facts and circumstances of this case, the State had the obligation of assuring the availability of informant Gates on the trial of the case against respondent Self. If the State has this obligation under the law and the facts, and fails to discharge it, Self's constitutionally mandated guarantee of a fair trial is violated and he cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offense. The critical facts as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals appear to be as follows: The State did not conceal the informant from the respondent; Alabama does not by statute provide the State authority to detain material witnesses; Gates informed state agents of his intention to leave the jurisdiction of the state; and the state agents did nothing to prevent him from leaving the state although the State was aware that Gates had felony charges then pending against him.
The United States Supreme Court, in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), set the minimum standards of protection to be afforded an accused where the informer is an active participant in the illegal activity which results in the subsequent arrest and conviction of the accused. The Supreme Court held that if a confidential informer is a material witness, i.e., an active participant in the illegal transaction which leads to the charges brought against the accused, then the accused is entitled to learn from the State the identity of the confidential informant and his address. We believe that Roviaro establishes the minimum obligation of the State when, as here, an informer becomes an active participant in the illegal transaction. This rule has consistently been followed by our appellate courts. See, Rivers v. State, [MS. February 24, 1981] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Crim.App.1981), after remand [MS. June 23, 1981] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Crim.App.), writ quashed, [MS. June 4, 1982] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.1982); McElroy v. State, 360 So.2d 1060 (Ala.Cr.App.) cert. denied 360 So.2d 1067 (Ala.1978); Hatton v. State, 359 So.2d 822 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), writ quashed, 359 So.2d 832 (Ala.1978); Kilgore v. State, 50 Ala.App. 501, 280 So.2d 206 (1973).
The Court of Criminal Appeals in Kilgore v. State noted:
While Roviaro states the minimum obligation, i.e., disclosure of the identity and address of the informant, the decision also leaves the door open for further disclosure if the particular situation so warrants:
353 U.S. at 62, 77 S.Ct. at 628.
An examination of the facts in this case reveals that the confidential informer, Gates, played a major role in the illegal sale and thus was an active participant; these facts warrant application of the principles established in Roviaro. We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals in its rejection of the State's argument that Self must offer specific proof of what Gates's testimony would reveal. "It is the material character of the witness, not of the testimony, which must be demonstrated." People v. Mejia, 57 Cal.App.3d 574, 580, 129 Cal.Rptr. 192 (1976). It is inappropriate for this Court "to indulge in any speculation that the interviews would, or would not, have been fruitful to the defense." United States v. Mendez-Rodriguez, 450 F.2d 1, 5 (9th Cir.1971).
However, we cannot agree that the conduct by the State in this case warrants reversal of the conviction. The State had an obligation to disclose the identity of the informer and his address. The record establishes that the State met this obligation. Thus, the instant question is whether due process requires more than the minimum established in Roviaro.
Self proposes that this Court recognize the State's failure to keep Gates available as infringing upon Self's right to a fair trial guaranteed by the United States and Alabama Constitutions. We cannot agree with this proposition. Taylor v. State, 371 So.2d 971, 974 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ denied, 371 So.2d 975 (Ala.1979). In this case the State could not have kept Gates in the state so that he could testify if Self had wanted to use him in his defense. It is true that charges were pending against Gates for drug-related charges in Montgomery and Elmore Counties, but the State could not have used these charges to hold Gates pending the prosecution of Self. This is true irrespective of the fact that part of the reason Gates worked with the ABC Board was so that these charges would be dismissed. In addition, we know of no Alabama statutes providing for detention or production of witnesses for any kind of case. Judge DeCarlo in his dissent from the majority opinion by the Court of Criminal Appeals adequately expresses our view where he states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mason v. State
...of his identity is not material and, therefore, not required." Self v. State, 420 So.2d 792, 795 (Ala.Cr. App.1981), rev'd, 420 So.2d 798 (Ala.1982) (emphasis added).3 "`Generally speaking, where the identity of a confidential informer is sought on the issue of guilt or innocence, and the a......
-
Britain v. State
...of the evidence in the case in which it is requested." Self v. State, 420 So.2d 792, 797 (Ala.Cr.App.1981) rev'd on other grounds, 420 So.2d 798 (Ala.1982), on remand, aff'd, 420 So.2d 803 Requested charges 9 through 14 were properly refused, because they were incorrect statments of the law......
-
Qualls v. State
...accused, then the accused is entitled to learn from the State the identity of the confidential informant and his address." Self v. State, 420 So.2d 798, 800 (Ala.1982) (citing Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 Cosey testified that an informant was in the car......
-
Moss v. State
...of his identity is not material and, therefore, not required.' "Self v. State, 420 So.2d 792, 795 (Ala.Cr. App.1981), rev'd, 420 So.2d 798 (Ala. 1982) (emphasis added). "`"Generally speaking, where the identity of a confidential informer is sought on the issue of guilt or innocence, and the......